[lispm]

Why should it be 'projectional editing'? All you see in Apple Dylan is a bunch of browsers/editors, conceptually similar to what a Smalltalk or Interlisp IDE did, but with a different UI.

As you can see in the screen shots, it presented Dylan source code, but through a bunch of browsers, folding editors and navigation tools.

There is no 'intent' captured.

[borplk]

I'm not intimately familiar with Apple Dylan but at least based on the information on that page it very much reminded my of intentional software.

"This also illustrates a key feature of the Apple Dylan TR: every part of your source code was not just text in a text file, it was a separate object in an object database. This gave the IDE incredible power, because meta-data about each object could be maintained to facilitate browsing via a variety of relationships and views, but less-than-optimal implementation may have been responsible for some of the performance problems of the Technology Release."

Having the program as an object stored in database with metadata and editing/browsing it with an editor is intentional software as far as I'm concerned (Simonyi's definition has nuances and extra constraints I know).

It's not like there are so many of these around that we have to categorise and differentiate them anyway. They are very few of them around so for now as far as I'm concerned they all go in the same bucket of "things that attempt to break away from plaintext" in my view.

[pvg]

Having the program as an object stored in database with metadata and editing/browsing it with an editor is intentional software as far as I'm concerned

That would make any VCS- and annotation-aware IDE an intentional-programming tool. I don't think that's really the case and it wasn't for the Dylan environment either.